Denied BJ’s Liquor Transfer Back on Town Council Docket [Updated]

Back in June, a set of interrelated license issues came before the Town Council involving the routine transfer of an existing all alcohol license to BJs. The troupe of representatives from BJs promised to be good corporate citizens and all the expected platitudes while the current holder of the all alcohol license, explained that the sale would permit a more financially secure future for them.

Meanwhile, a number of local businesses spoke out against the possibility of a corporate giant like BJs coming into the market. They cited concerns about whether BJs could keep alcohol out of the hands of minor employees among other things. And, when it came to a vote, to the surprise of almost everyone, the Council turned down the transfers.

Now, weeks later, the matter has returned to the agenda, with no explanatory note accompanying the development.

It may be of consequence that both BJ’s and the current license holder have hearings scheduled with the State Alcoholic Beverage Control Commission. [UPDATE: However, Town Administrator Jamie Hellen noted that the petitioners requested a reconsideration, prior to the matter being scheduled by ABCC.]

On Sept 11, from 10 to noon, the Commission will hear “an appeal from the action of the Town of Franklin for denying the MGL Ch 138 SS. 15 all alcoholic beverage retail package store transfer and change of location application of Mormax Corporation d/b/a BJ’s Whole Sale Club. Then on Sept. 18., also from 10 to noon, the Commission “will hear an appeal from the action of the Town of Franklin for denying a wines and malt beverages retail package store transfer and change of location application of Rye’s Wine Inc., d/b/a/ Pour Richards Wine and Provisions to be exercised at 835 West Central Street, Suite 2, Franklin.”

A quick explainer. As part of the June transfer proposal, BJ’s planned to transfer its wine and malt beverage license to Pour Richards. It then gets a bit more complicated because the “Pour Richards” operation was itself moving and going under new ownership.

In any case, it may be that the threat of ABCC action has Franklin in a mood to revisit the topic. But while the actions that the town refused to sanction are generally “by right,” meaning they are just routine transfers, prior court and ABCC practice has, in fact, sanctioned refusals based on local circumstances.

A 2013 case in Harwich, on the Cape, led to denial of a transfer involving a super market because in the statewide 2006 ballot question regarding whether the sale of wine in grocery stores should be allowed, there was a 70% voter turnout of registered voters and 62% of those voting in Harwich opposed the sale of wine in grocery stores. And that local voter hostility was allowed to stand as a justification for local government opposition to the 2013 licensing refusal.

What factors may be presented by both sides on Wednesday, is hard to anticipate. But the Mormax/BJ appeal mentions that the Town Council has failed to issue “a statement of reasons, as required by law, stating the facts presented on the record during the course of the June 26, 2024 public hearing” one which its decision was based and also notes that there was no discussion on the record of any reasons for the votes of the members.